Hypersexualization of women in Pathfinder materials


Product Discussion

501 to 550 of 641 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

Lamontius wrote:

do you see 'instantly gets their bone on' anywhere on these list tables

or just

PRD wrote:
Once a creature's attitude has shifted to helpful, the creature gives in to most requests without a check, unless the request is against its nature or puts it in serious peril. Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature's values or its nature, subject to GM discretion.

I don't see that, but now you've got me wondering about the difference between simple and dangerous "aid." :P

(Look, whatever, I know I'm a scumbag . . .)


Lamontius wrote:
PRD wrote:
Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature's values or its nature, subject to GM discretion.

So how about the same limitation in spell effects? That way no player's character has to do any sex stuff that the player doesn't want them to do -- which frankly would be my preference. Also, I'd strengthen the text -- presumably sex isn't automatically against all PCs' values or nature, so we'd need to expand the range of things that Diplomacy can't do.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ithaeur wrote:
Question: When is it Fanservie for women and when it is "Male power fantasies"?

when she says it is. that is the best standard we have so far. I still love how silly the argument really is.

Webstore Gninja Minion

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Let's step away from the rape talk, please-and-thank-you, and be respectful towards other posters.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew R wrote:
Ithaeur wrote:
Question: When is it Fanservie for women and when it is "Male power fantasies"?
when she says it is. that is the best standard we have so far. I still love how silly the argument really is.

How about "when it's made by straight men, for straight men, with no actual interest in what women/non-straight men think of their product"?

It's not fanservice if there is no interest in servicing the fans.

The Exchange

Shadow Knight 12 wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
Ithaeur wrote:
Question: When is it Fanservie for women and when it is "Male power fantasies"?
when she says it is. that is the best standard we have so far. I still love how silly the argument really is.

How about "when it's made by straight men, for straight men, with no actual interest in what women/non-straight men think of their product"?

It's not fanservice if there is no interest in servicing the fans.

And paizo is very much not that at all. Flip that around. a female artist can make a character for a female audience and men will look at it and still see she is attractive. They may or may not care about the story, seem less picky about slight imperfections in the facial expression. People can find "service" where none exists or claim there is none because it is not to their personal taste. And sometimes in art they are more focused on the "do you want to BE this character" more than "do you want to bed this character"


Ssalarn wrote:
Similarly, monks are almost never beasts with layer upon layer of rippling muscle, they're mystics who spend as much time in meditation as they do performing exercises that prevent that kind of build-up of musculature and instead promote thinness of limb and enhanced mobility. Again, Sajan is an example of pure sexualization.

Not most PF monks though.


Andrew R wrote:
And paizo is very much not that at all. Flip that around. a female artist can make a character for a female audience and men will look at it and still see she is attractive. They may or may not care about the story, seem less picky about slight imperfections in the facial expression. People can find "service" where none exists or claim there is none because it is not to their personal taste. And sometimes in art they are more focused on the "do you want to BE this character" more than "do you want to bed this character"

If a female artist draws a female character for a female audience and men find the character attractive, it's not fanservice. Fanservice is a deliberate attempt to appeal to the fans' tastes. That's why it's called fanservice.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Nicos wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Similarly, monks are almost never beasts with layer upon layer of rippling muscle, they're mystics who spend as much time in meditation as they do performing exercises that prevent that kind of build-up of musculature and instead promote thinness of limb and enhanced mobility. Again, Sajan is an example of pure sexualization.
Not most PF monks though.

The fact that there's currently a glass-cannon STR Monk build that's fairly popular does not change the fact that the description of the monk and it's related fluff and abilities are all tied to real world eastern traditions that have probably never seen a single practitioner in their entire history who looks anything like the muscular and cut demigod that is Sajan. He makes Michelangelo's David look like a wimpy shut in.

The Exchange

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Shadow Knight 12 wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
And paizo is very much not that at all. Flip that around. a female artist can make a character for a female audience and men will look at it and still see she is attractive. They may or may not care about the story, seem less picky about slight imperfections in the facial expression. People can find "service" where none exists or claim there is none because it is not to their personal taste. And sometimes in art they are more focused on the "do you want to BE this character" more than "do you want to bed this character"
If a female artist draws a female character for a female audience and men find the character attractive, it's not fanservice. Fanservice is a deliberate attempt to appeal to the fans' tastes. That's why it's called fanservice.

So if a female artist drew seoni because she thinks it would be awesome to be her it is ok and if a guy drew her because he thinks she is sexy it is fanservice and wrong?

Webstore Gninja Minion

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed a number of posts and their replies discussing rape. Please, let's not go there. Also, let's try and dial back on the hyperbole and insinuating posts.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Shadow Knight 12 wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
And paizo is very much not that at all. Flip that around. a female artist can make a character for a female audience and men will look at it and still see she is attractive. They may or may not care about the story, seem less picky about slight imperfections in the facial expression. People can find "service" where none exists or claim there is none because it is not to their personal taste. And sometimes in art they are more focused on the "do you want to BE this character" more than "do you want to bed this character"
If a female artist draws a female character for a female audience and men find the character attractive, it's not fanservice. Fanservice is a deliberate attempt to appeal to the fans' tastes. That's why it's called fanservice.

Umm, but if a female artist is drawing art that's intended to appeal to female artists, isn't that explicitly fanservice by your own definition?

"If a female artist draws a female character for a female audience"
"Fanservice is a deliberate attempt to appeal to the fans' tastes"

Men also finding the portrayal attractive does not change the fact that an artist created art to appeal to a specific demographic. The referenced example is fanservice for women, regardless of whether or not men find it attractive.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
Shadow Knight 12 wrote:
Andrew R wrote:
And paizo is very much not that at all. Flip that around. a female artist can make a character for a female audience and men will look at it and still see she is attractive. They may or may not care about the story, seem less picky about slight imperfections in the facial expression. People can find "service" where none exists or claim there is none because it is not to their personal taste. And sometimes in art they are more focused on the "do you want to BE this character" more than "do you want to bed this character"
If a female artist draws a female character for a female audience and men find the character attractive, it's not fanservice. Fanservice is a deliberate attempt to appeal to the fans' tastes. That's why it's called fanservice.

Umm, but if a female artist is drawing art that's intended to appeal to female artists, isn't that explicitly fanservice by your own definition?

"If a female artist draws a female character for a female audience"
"Fanservice is a deliberate attempt to appeal to the fans' tastes"

Men also finding the portrayal attractive does not change the fact that an artist created art to appeal to a specific demographic. The referenced example is fanservice for women, regardless of whether or not men find it attractive.

Then we can simply say that most art is drawn for the us to enjoy and not nitpick the details? Because the alternative seems to be no art because no one will agree what is right


Ssalarn wrote:
Nicos wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Similarly, monks are almost never beasts with layer upon layer of rippling muscle, they're mystics who spend as much time in meditation as they do performing exercises that prevent that kind of build-up of musculature and instead promote thinness of limb and enhanced mobility. Again, Sajan is an example of pure sexualization.
Not most PF monks though.
The fact that there's currently a glass-cannon STR Monk build that's fairly popular does not change the fact that the description of the monk and it's related fluff and abilities are all tied to real world eastern traditions that have probably never seen a single practitioner in their entire history who looks anything like the muscular and cut demigod that is Sajan. He makes Michelangelo's David look like a wimpy shut in.

Like a PF monk?, you could argue that is bad match between the fluff and the crunch but still, that is the way most PF monks works.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

liz courts hyperbole is like 80% of my posting
the other 15% is about liquor and math

Scarab Sages

Lamontius wrote:

liz courts hyperbole is like 80% of my posting

the other 15% is about liquor and math

Ha! :D

Webstore Gninja Minion

Lamontius wrote:

liz courts hyperbole is like 80% of my posting

the other 15% is about liquor and math

I said "dial back" not "eliminate." Post more about booze and math. :P

Also, let's save the monk discussion for one of the many other ones on the topic.

Edit: Also removed a few more posts. We do remove posts that quote other removed posts, so please keep that in mind when making your own posts. Posty posty posty post.

Shadow Lodge

I agree. The only exception is in VtM and the WoD where things like Frenzy, literally loosing control to your monstrous side for a short period, which was kind of the point of the game, (being a monster).

Which would make more sense it the post I was responding to had not been deleted or removed. . .


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:

Umm, but if a female artist is drawing art that's intended to appeal to female artists, isn't that explicitly fanservice by your own definition?

"If a female artist draws a female character for a female audience"
"Fanservice is a deliberate attempt to appeal to the fans' tastes"

Men also finding the portrayal attractive does not change the fact that an artist created art to appeal to a specific demographic. The referenced example is fanservice for women, regardless of whether or not men find it attractive.

If a straight female artist draws a female character for a straight female audience, it's a power fantasy, because there is no sex appeal involved. If a straight female artist draws a male character for a straight female audience, that's fanservice, because the artist is deliberately appealing to the audience's sexual tastes.

I am quite certain you could easily understand what I meant without this needless clarification.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Andrew R wrote:
Then we can simply say that most art is drawn for the us to enjoy and not nitpick the details? Because the alternative seems to be no art because no one will agree what is right

To be clear (in case I wasn't) I'm in the same boat as you on this one Andrew. I think most people prefer art to be attractive. I think that, generally, men and women regardless of sexual orientation find many of the same physical attributes attractive. An attractive woman is an attractive woman, regardless of who is looking at her. Personal preference for sexual attraction is a little bit different in everyone, but I think you know when someone is good looking, regardless of whether or not you want to sleep with them. I think Paizo's choices and direction for art have been amazing and inclusive and I couldn't be happier.

I think Paizo has done an amazing job with its portrayal of females, especially the Iconics and most major NPCs. I think they've also tried extremely hard to make Golarion a place where gender association and sexual preference are open and reflective of the different values and preferences found in the real world. I almost wonder if they don't go a little overboard sometimes. Not for nothing, but when playing Wrath of the Righteous I literally had a member of my group ask me if Paizo was trying to imply that the Worldwound was "turning people gay" because they hadn't actually met a single NPC whose sexual preference was known that wasn't gay. They said it jokingly, but the point is they (Paizo) are so unbiased that it almost felt like they were biased in the other direction (probably exaggerated by the fact that we've had a few "Vaarsuvius" characters where their gender was never actually explicitly given since the player didn't find it important).

Paizo Employee Design Manager

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Shadow Knight 12 wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:

Umm, but if a female artist is drawing art that's intended to appeal to female artists, isn't that explicitly fanservice by your own definition?

"If a female artist draws a female character for a female audience"
"Fanservice is a deliberate attempt to appeal to the fans' tastes"

Men also finding the portrayal attractive does not change the fact that an artist created art to appeal to a specific demographic. The referenced example is fanservice for women, regardless of whether or not men find it attractive.

If a straight female artist draws a female character for a straight female audience, it's a power fantasy, because there is no sex appeal involved. If a straight female artist draws a male character for a straight female audience, that's fanservice, because the artist is deliberately appealing to the audience's sexual tastes.

I am quite certain you could easily understand what I meant without this needless clarification.

I don't think I could "easily understand what you meant without that needless clarification" actually, because you came off sounding like "fanservice" was only a thing if there was a male bias, and that females were incapable of producing or benefiting from the art you'd categorized as such. Given that you and I don't know each other, I can't read your mind, and I can't gain cues based on your expression or intonation, it would probably help for you to be concise and clear in what you're saying if you don't want it to be misconstrued.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
I don't think I could "easily understand what you meant without that needless clarification" actually, because you came off sounding like "fanservice" was only a thing if there was a male bias, and that females were incapable of producing or benefiting from the art you'd categorized as such. Given that you and I don't know each other, I can't read your mind, and I can't gain cues based on your expression or intonation, it would probably help for you to be concise and clear in what you're saying if you don't want it to be misconstrued.

Have you ever heard of a muscleman being referred to as "fanservice" when meant for a straight male audience? I don't think you have. I think you've heard other terms to refer to him, and I'm pretty sure you've only heard of the term "fanservice" in contexts of sexual appeal.

Hence why my clarification is absolutely needless and your further enquiries merely an attempt to derail the conversation into nitpicking about semantics.


Liz, do you ever feel like Paizo's inclusivity of LBGT characters enables a false equivalence of sexual empowerment and characterization? I'm asking because of this thread, and Do Female Iconics Deserve a Fashion Make-Over (or what ever it's called) and how all the comments on the new iconics thread talk about how sexy (in a totally respectful way) all the ACG iconics are, and at certain point I just start to feel like there are more inventive ways to engage the customer base.

(Or maybe you guys have figured out a championship-level formula, and I'm just pulling a Debbie Downer, who the hell knows.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

can we talk about the actual pathfinder material


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
If anything I would call Iomadae substantially more sexy. Nocticula isn't even a little sexy, she's "wanton". There's a difference.

... right.

Okay. So you're saying there's a difference in "sexy"? Fine. Whatever you want to call it, give the players who want it that difference.

Ssalarn wrote:

And again, I think that your "shirtless muscled men isn't sexy because they're combat types" is you projecting your own prejudices upon the art. Seltyiel is a battered and abused figure who spent much of his life in prison. Those muscles are pure sexualization and completely unrealistic.

Similarly, monks are almost never beasts with layer upon layer of rippling muscle, they're mystics who spend as much time in meditation as they do performing exercises that prevent that kind of build-up of musculature and instead promote thinness of limb and enhanced mobility. Again, Sajan is an example of pure sexualization.

Woah it's almost like you're just making stuff up.

Ssalarn wrote:
xeose4 wrote:
provide me with one, single example of a male pathfinder deity needing to cover his privates due to nudity, if you think that men are so sexualized.
How about Basiles, herald of Asmodeus. Or Zon-kuthon looking like the end of result of serious S&M taken way too far. Pretty sure he's wearing nothing but a leather vest, loin cloth, and nipple rings.

Okay, A) I said deity because Cayden Cailean's prostitute companion alone now has a 2:1 ratio on that and neither of them are deities. And B)... really? You're saying that Zon-Kuthon is baring the equivalent of Urgothoa's breasts? A man, fully clothed, with a robe that goes down past his knees and a vest almost completely covering his chest... is the equivalent of this, based on speculation on what he might or might not be wearing underneath it?

Ssalarn wrote:

So, women's breasts are always sexual, but male bodies are only sexual if they're in the middle of a strip tease? I know several women who would be horrified and angered by this assertion. This is the kind of thinking that starts the road that ends with "Well, she asked for what happened by dressing like that at a bar".

Women have boobs. Some larger than others, some smaller, but they are a fact of existence. Saying that their very existence is an example of artisitic exploitation of women is ignorant and neanderthalic, and actually argues against the points you're trying to make about sexual equality.

There is a thing called context, which can completely change the meaning of an act or object. The same act or object in two different contexts can have two different meanings.

When women's breasts are depicted in the context of the male-dominated DnD RPG setting where women consistently share stories of feeling excluded, yeah, I'd say there's a pretty solid history of them being sexually objectified there. Yeah, women have boobs. They're great! They can show them off however they want! But this isn't the context of "the bar", this isn't the case of women deciding how much, or what they want shown. Your argument that breasts aren't viewed as sexual objects by men or society is ludicrous and I don't even know why you would try to justify it. I mean I could just cite "everything ever" as proof of this? Men are explicitly told breasts are sexual, women are told they're sexual, people in american society grow up believing they are sexual. Yeah, there's some pushback against that, which is fair, awesome, and great. You cannot possibly argue that male chests are given the same level of objectification in any way, shape, or form. Male chests are not viewed as sexual by society, unless put in specific context. Female chests are viewed as sexual, unless put into specific context (and even then, the fact that so many mothers still complain about the harassment they receive while breastfeeding should make it clear that many people still struggle with accepting nonsexual contexts of breasts).

Ashiel wrote:
If the table-talk of my sister and her entourage of lady-friends is any indication, you are dead wrong on this. The things they say about some sexy pecs and ab muscles outweigh any sort of commentary on breasts made by my male companions, both in frequency and in provocativity.

Abs, pecs, and chests are insanely sexy. I love them to pieces. Your sister and her friends' reactions is why I think this thread is warranted; however, given the fact that the people this stuff is aimed at have started multiple threads, lobbied, and pushed for something different than what they are currently getting would seem to tell me that whatever you're stating we're supposed to have be equivalent, or enjoy, because "well he's shirtless," or "he's got a piercing stare! that's totally equivalent to wanton/seduction/bare boobs/bare legs/sexy outfits/sexy poses! that alone counts right?" should tell you that it's not what they want.

Ashiel wrote:


Also, you're wrong on a few other levels as well. Seltyiel is a dex-based character. His character sheet lists him at only a slightly above average Strength (12). Meanwhile Ezren who has a slightly below average Strength and is an older fellow, is also a sexy muscled Dos Equis guy with a staff.

Last time I checked, dexterity was a physical stat and Seltyiel is a melee character. What's your point?

Ashiel wrote:
Finally, the unacceptability to bare your female-breasts is just pure old fashioned sexism that's become ingrained in our society, and the good news is that it's fading away. There are a number of states in the US that have no laws against women walking around without covering their chests, including (to my knowledge) Iowa and New York. Meanwhile a bit further south, there is a common standard for businesses and other locations to post "No shirt, no shoes, no service", which applies for both sexes (some dude walks in without a shirt means he gets turned away; whether that's a good idea or not is a different matter).

Yep, it is sexist and there is a strong feminist movement dedicated to pushing against it. However, that doesn't stop people from shaming, deriding, or discriminating against topless women. That doesn't stop censors from banning the showing of breasts at certain ratings or stop men from viewing them as sexual objects.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Shadow Knight 12 wrote:
Have you ever heard of a muscleman being referred to as "fanservice" when meant for a straight male audience? I don't think you have. ***

This has nothing to do with what was being discussed. Your original comment was in reference to Andrew's quote

Andrew R wrote:
And paizo is very much not that at all. Flip that around. a female artist can make a character for a female audience and men will look at it and still see she is attractive. They may or may not care about the story, seem less picky about slight imperfections in the facial expression. People can find "service" where none exists or claim there is none because it is not to their personal taste. And sometimes in art they are more focused on the "do you want to BE this character" more than "do you want to bed this character"

to which you replied

Shadow Knight 12 wrote:
If a female artist draws a female character for a female audience and men find the character attractive, it's not fanservice. Fanservice is a deliberate attempt to appeal to the fans' tastes. That's why it's called fanservice.

You really can't see how that came off as you saying that fanservice only exists in the context of art that appeals to men?

This definitely isn't a derail, this a direct exploration of the OP's questions and comments regarding inequality in the sexual portrayal of female vs. male characters. "A muscleman being referred toas "fanservice" when meant for a straight male audience" isn't something that was under discussion, it's some sort of strange strawman attempting to undercut the discussion.

The conversation the OP started is one about sexual inequality. They imply several times that females are more sexually exploited in the art more than males, but that it wouldn't be an issue if the exploitation was equal.

I've responded and discussed the fact that the male iconics are far more hyper-sexualized than the females. The OP requested a male deity who needed a floating bit of material to disguise their nethers because they were portrayed nude, I provided one. I am actively participating in this conversation from the stance that the majority of these perceived inequalities aren't actually there, and that men are, in fact, portrayed in just as sexual a light as women.

Now, if we're operating under the assumption that yes, the sexuality exists in all of the art and the male/female balance isn't a factor in whether or not it's okay, we can have that conversation too, but I'm addressing the OP's points and expressing that I believe that much of this imbalance isn't real and is coming from a demographic that is either unintentionally or intentionally missig half of the picture.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Hitdice, any "official" stance I have on that particular topic would be marred by the fact that I have drawn my fair share of fan service, of which there is a very small percentage of male figures, and I do not wish to provide ammunition for arguments for/against fan service and "sexy"/erotic art, so I try and stay out of that discussion (as best I can). So my thoughts on the matter are my own, and should not be considered "official Paizo ex cathedra" (which is why I post under "Lilith" for these sorts of things).

But I do not believe there is a false equivalence, nor do I believe that having sexy characters is a bad thing. I think that we are including many different character types is a very good thing, and perhaps it is because we have been bucking the long history of "white dudes in armor" for as long as I've been associated with Paizo, and that more eyes than ever are on our products is why we frequently see a resurgence in this particular topic. My number one problem with many fantasy (and science fiction, and comic) art is when there *isn't* variety. I want steel-clad Amazon warriors as much as I want bare-chested, pale-skinned magi yaoi fuel, and I am upset when I am forced into a stereotype. Art is very subjective, though, and attempts to quantify it will always differ depending on who you ask. Sex, sexuality, and gender are also not so easy to file away into neat little piles to suit everybody. It's a complicated subject, with answers full of "maybes" and "sometimes" and "not always." (Much like engaging the customer base. :D )

The best we can do is ask, and listen.


Ssalarn wrote:
How about Basiles, herald of Asmodeus. Or Zon-kuthon looking like the end of result of serious S&M taken way too far. Pretty sure he's wearing nothing but a leather vest, loin cloth, and nipple rings.

Are you seriously arguing that either one of those characters is drawn for the purpose of being attractive to the player base? In the same way that this or this or this is?

Paizo Employee Design Manager

xeose4 wrote:

Woah it's almost like you're just making stuff up.

Thank you for underscoring my point by linking in all of those pictures of hyper-sexualized and totally unrealistic men.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
You really can't see how that came off as you saying that fanservice only exists in the context of art that appeals to men?

You really can't see how that was a response to his example, which used a female artist, a female character and a female audience?

Ssalarn wrote:

The conversation the OP started is one about sexual inequality. They imply several times that females are more sexually exploited in the art more than males, but that it wouldn't be an issue if the exploitation was equal.

I've responded and discussed the fact that the male iconics are far more hyper-sexualized than the females. The OP requested a male deity who needed a floating bit of material to disguise...

So you, presumably a straight male, are more well-versed, aware, and are a more trustworthy authority to determine whether male characters are hypersexualised than women and non-straight men?

Because that's what you're arguing here. You're arguing that you are more informed on a matter that does not relate to you or your sexuality than the people who are actually well-versed on the subject.

The Exchange

Shadow Knight 12 wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
I don't think I could "easily understand what you meant without that needless clarification" actually, because you came off sounding like "fanservice" was only a thing if there was a male bias, and that females were incapable of producing or benefiting from the art you'd categorized as such. Given that you and I don't know each other, I can't read your mind, and I can't gain cues based on your expression or intonation, it would probably help for you to be concise and clear in what you're saying if you don't want it to be misconstrued.

Have you ever heard of a muscleman being referred to as "fanservice" when meant for a straight male audience? I don't think you have. I think you've heard other terms to refer to him, and I'm pretty sure you've only heard of the term "fanservice" in contexts of sexual appeal.

Hence why my clarification is absolutely needless and your further enquiries merely an attempt to derail the conversation into nitpicking about semantics.

Refered to as? no, but fabio is on the cover of all of those romance novels for a reason. Fanservice is used for excessively sexualizing a character out of context (almost more of a joke in animie) than just a drawing that is "sexy"

The Exchange

Hold up for a second, folks, please. I've got something to say before y'all fire off another round.

One of the essential problems with art (as opposed to what's written in the adventure) is that it is... sorry to bring up an old chestnut... it is in the eye of the beholder*. There's always going to be viewer bias. I usually don't notice when male characters are drawn in a way that's meant to entice. I go, "Half-naked man. I bet he's chilly." And then I forget all about it. I usually do notice when female characters are drawn in a way that's meant to entice. (Those teases.) So I'm obviously going to have a higher count of Category 2s than Category 1s... I remember 'em. It's a confirmation bias.

With events actually written into an adventure, it's a lot less subjective. The number of times an adventure or AP brings up the ideas of romance, marriage, seduction, or sexual assault can actually be counted and the assailants and victims can be sorted by gender. That's actual, hard data we can all appraise and argue over with some hope of reaching a conclusion. So maybe we should stick to story, not art?

(* 'Beholder' is a copyrighted term owned by Hasbro and shame on me for using the word!)

Paizo Employee Design Manager

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Shadow Knight 12 wrote:
Because that's what you're arguing here. You're arguing that you are more informed on a matter that does not relate to you or your sexuality than the people who are actually well-versed on the subject.

And now we get to the point. You have assumed that I am male and straight, and drawn from that assumption the conclusion that my insight or input has no value. Despite the fact that you have no idea what my background or experience are, you have decided that I, as a male, don't get to talk about whether or not men are being exploited just as much as women in art. And instead of having a discussion about it, you are attacking me, personally, and stating that my opinion is of no value. That is sexism. It is a two way street, and from what I've seen very few people are willing to explore both sides of it, and those that have risen to the challenge posed by the OP come under fire for daring to have a difference of opinion.

Art that I know a fair number of women find attractive, because they've talked about it, is dismissed as being contextually irrelevant, despite the fact that the existence of that context is unique to each viewer. I've played D&D and Pathfinder with at least as many women as men, and I've had conversations very much like this one. I've listened to girls talk about how much they appreciate Paizo's art and the steps they've taken to portray women of numerous builds with more realistic garb. I've also heard them make all of the little "ooh lala" comments about Seltyiel, or "he can park his slippers under my bed" in regards to PF's Connery-esque iconic Wizard.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
xeose4 wrote:
Abs, pecs, and chests are insanely sexy. I love them to pieces.

Congratulations, you've just sexually objectified. Welcome to humanity.

Quote:
Your sister and her friends' reactions is why I think this thread is warranted; however, given the fact that the people this stuff is aimed at have started multiple threads, lobbied, and pushed for something different than what they are currently getting would seem to tell me that whatever you're stating we're supposed to have be equivalent, or enjoy, because "well he's shirtless," or "he's got a piercing stare! that's totally equivalent to wanton/seduction/bare boobs/bare legs/sexy outfits/sexy poses! that alone counts right?" should tell you that it's not what they want.

Well I never said anything about a piercing stare, though I will admit when a person stares at me a certain way that it can instantly 'cause my arousal to increase, or my creep-factor to increase (occasionally both).

Honestly I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Is it only okay to objectify men? Because that's what my sister and her friends are doing. Talking about, rating, ranking, and talking "dirty" about men based on their physical characteristics and talking about the things they could do to them. Most of my male friends on the other hand cap out in terms of provocative commentary at "Wow, she's smokin' hot!" or "Her face is so pretty" or "That gaze" or "She's pretty, and her boobs are great too". Except my brother, as he goes for shock value in so much, so he's often like "I'd let her do things to me that were illegal in twelve states". He's kind of the odd-one out.

Quote:
Last time I checked, dexterity was a physical stat and Seltyiel is a melee character. What's your point?

My point is that Seltyiel doesn't have any reason to have awesome muscles other than because it looks good. Same with Ezren who is a WIZARD and by all accounts should be avoiding melee like the plague, yet him AND Seoni (a SORCERER) both have very athletic builds (Ezren looks like he was sculpted from Marble and Happiness, and Seoni does too, just look at the muscle definition in her legs and arms in the RotRL artwork).

Quote:
Yep, it is sexist and there is a strong feminist movement dedicated to pushing against it. However, that doesn't stop people from shaming, deriding, or discriminating against topless women. That doesn't stop censors from banning the showing of breasts at certain ratings or stop men from viewing them as sexual objects.

1. Yay. I'd like to see such things abolished and equality for all.

2. That's right. In the same way that "slut shaming" and shaming people for finding other people or depictions of people attractive.
3. WE ARE SEXUAL OBJECTS. We are biologically engineered to be sexy and to make potential mates see us as such. Men and women alike are objectified, because it's human nature. If you look good, people will recognize that you look good, and there is no one standard.

Breasts, butts, symmetry, height, weight, pheromones, etc, all play a specific and demonstratable role in the attraction and reaction of human beings. This is undeniable. Portions of your body, by accident or design actually are sex objects.

100% of the entire cast of Pathfinder are going to illicit sexual responses from somebody.


Lincoln Hills wrote:
With events actually written into an adventure, it's a lot less subjective. The number of times an adventure or AP brings up the ideas of romance, marriage, seduction, or sexual assault can actually be counted and the assailants and victims can be sorted by gender. That's actual, hard data we can all appraise and argue over with some hope of reaching a conclusion. So maybe we should stick to story, not art?

Lincoln Hills, may I direct you to this thread, particularly to this post? It has the stats for explicit romance-options for all APs.

The Exchange

Interesting. It's data. Thanks for the reference.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Joana wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
How about Basiles, herald of Asmodeus. Or Zon-kuthon looking like the end of result of serious S&M taken way too far. Pretty sure he's wearing nothing but a leather vest, loin cloth, and nipple rings.
Are you seriously arguing that either one of those characters is drawn for the purpose of being attractive to the player base? In the same way that this or this or this is?

The OP asked for one deity who needed a floating bit of cloth to disguise their nudity. I provided one.

As to those pictures, I would say that there are numerous bits of male art that are just as sexy as those (number 3 is not sexy. It's... scary). I would say that this, this, and this, are all examples of hyper-sexualized and unrealsitic male portrayals in Paizo's art.

501 to 550 of 641 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / Hypersexualization of women in Pathfinder materials All Messageboards